Not to dwell, but you shouldn't misstate the actual facts as a last word then walk away, that's firing off a straw man then taking your ball and going home.
It wasn't "military service", it was military or other gov't service which was tailored to fit the person's capabilities and absolutely unrestricted in access.
It wasn't any sort of junta, military or otherwise, as those in service had no ability to influence policy while serving. If that's a "soft junta" what do you call every Western democracy today, where military members can vote while serving? "semi-hard" juntas?
Finally, those who chose not to serve had full and equal rights, in fact they had more rights than those actually in service (whose rights were further restricted as necessary to their service). The only restricted right was the right to vote, but even that was "restricted" only in as much as the individual could choose not to serve to gain it.
It was a shall-issue, opt-in restriction.